New Moto Guzzi Door Mats Available Now
I'm with you 216. I think revolvers are best. Placing shots rather than spraying them IMO.
DAO is different on striker guns like the new Sig P320. The trigger pull on my Glocks (also striker-fired) is only around 4.5 lbs and it is the same for every shot. Hammer-fired guns in DAO typically have heavy triggers...9-12 lbs.I think that the military learned a lesson when they fielded the three shot burst feature on AR-pattern rifles. The sear was a rotary design that gave the rifle three different-feeling triggers. It had a negative effect on accuracy (as well as on peelbacks and other immediate actions to break contact) and the return to the old style sear happened post haste. Striker pistols deliver a reasonable trigger-pull that is consistent in feel with every shot. M9s (Beretta 92F) on the other hand, were DA/SA guns that had a 10 lb pull on the first shot Mm(DA) and a 4 lb pull on subsequent shots (SA). Two widely different triggers on the same gun makes for lousy trigger control under stress, particularly with new or infrequent shooters. Striker guns will never be as beautiful as the hammer-fired revolvers and automatics of the past, but they are simpler, more rugged, and easier to master. I expect that the Sig will give good service.
Well dont forget that 9mm is the nato standard.Also remember that the idea is not to necessarily kill your opponent but to wound him.A dead opponent is dead, no further action required, a wounded opponent on the other hand can take up to 10 people to treat, transport etc, this is draining on resourses and costs money.That presupposes that you are fighting a semi civilised opponent that has similar outlooks to your side.The other issue is felt and perceived recoil and the distinct shortage of rounds fired in training.9mm due to economies of scale is also cheaper and made by most western nations.
Well dont forget that 9mm is the nato standard.Also remember that the idea is not to necessarily kill your opponent but to wound him.A dead opponent is dead, no further action required, a wounded opponent on the other hand can take up to 10 people to treat, transport etc, this is draining on resourses and costs money.
As an Army vet and a retired federal agent, I can assure you that I was never trained to wound rather than aim at the very center of my target. Bullets with bad terminal ballistics are more the work of the The Hague Convention than some conscious decision to maim as a preferred option in combat. The cost of armed confrontation is dear enough without making it uglier than it is already...
Yeah, its getting political. .but it lasted longer than I expected.
Any one with real world training knows to aim center mass for a kill shoot. This crap about wounding is what politicians created to cover their ass over the weak 9mm idea. It don't matter if you wound one bad guy or twenty you don't take out anymore than what is there. Wounded bad guys will shoot back they get mad when you hurt them. They are not going to stop an on going battle because somebody got hurt. The kill shoot is used to save your life from being taken by a bad guy either wounded or not.People have been brainwashed into believeing that the 9mm is good. That's ok, there are people that believe politians are good too. I'm disabled so I spend most of my day sitting in a chair. Guess what I use to defend my home with? a 1911 Not a 9mm or a polition.
Are you telling me Gene & Roy had it wrong~they just shot the gun out of the bad guys hands?????
I sold my 32-20 rifles a while back, when I stopped doing much small game hunting. I should get back into that, but the city liberals in my state (Mass) outlawed hunting w centerfire rifles. Can you believe it?Joe
9mm? Really? They obviously did not waste their time on ballistics testing.
For the military a pistol is not a primary weapons system only officers, snipers, MP's and downed aircrew have anything to do with them. I'll preface this with I have no idea and a google search may answer it 9mm is possibly the NATO standard now, not that the USA follows the NATO standard on a regular basis. .45ACP probably made sense when people were running around regularly with sub machine guns in the same caliber which is no longer the case.
remember that the idea is not to necessarily kill your opponent but to wound him.A dead opponent is dead, no further action required, a wounded opponent on the other hand can take up to 10 people to treat, transport etc, this is draining on resourses and costs money.That presupposes that you are fighting a semi civilised opponent that has similar outlooks to your side.The other issue is felt and perceived recoil and the distinct shortage of rounds fired in training.9mm due to economies of scale is also cheaper and made by most western nations.
I believe it, and not necessarily because it was city liberals (which it may very well be). In flat, fairly population-dense areas, a centerfire rifle round can go a LONG way if it ricochets off the ground, or was being held a little "high" on the target, and can be pretty dangerous.Lots and lots of deer and turkey killed over the years with shotguns or big pistols in Eastern Virginia with no need for .243s or 6.5mms ..... !Lannis
Lannis,Be careful with the philosophy of "society needs to make things safe."That's how they will make us safe from motorcycling.Joe
If I had a revolver that would shoot 17 times without reloading, I could probably shoot the gun out of Bart Taggart's or Silky Slim's hand too .... Lannis
